Back
ALOK ARADHE, ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
Cyrus Investments Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Joing Collectori, RR District – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J.
1. Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for appellants in W.A. Nos. 408, 439 and 442 of 2011.
Mr. T. Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 623 and 649 of 2011.
Mr. Raghu Gurram, learned counsel for appellants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 in W.A. No. 542 of 2011.
Ms. Anitha Swain, learned counsel for appellant Nos. 6 to 11 in W.A. No. 543 of 2011.
Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. C. Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel appears for respondent No. 1 in W.A. Nos. 439 and 543 of 2011.
Mr. A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. C. Apoorva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in W.A. No. 649 of 2011.
Mr. M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 9 to 20 in W.A. No. 408 of 2011.
2. Aggrieved by the common order of the learned Single Judge in the W.P. Nos. 24525, 24506 of 2008 (allowed) and 28272 of 2008 (dismissed), the following seven (7) Writ Appeals have been filed:
W.A. No. 439 of 2011 - Filed by Cyrus Investments
W.A. No. 543 of 2011 - Filed by Mohd. Qamuruddin Khan and Others
W.A. No. 649 of 2011 - Filed by An
The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice to all interested parties in land disputes, ruling that orders passed against deceased persons are null and void.
The scope of judicial review is confined to decision making process and not the decision per se.
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court affirmed that a revision petition under the ROR Act can be filed without a time limit, emphasizing the need for a fresh enquiry into land ownership claims, especially in cases of alleged fr....
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice and the prescribed method and procedure when exercising statutory powers.
Entries in revenue records made fraudulently lack legal validity, and administrative authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure justice.
Revenue authorities must issue individual notices before altering land records to uphold natural justice, as failure to do so renders the action arbitrary and illegal.
The court emphasized the necessity of following procedural requirements and the principle of natural justice in amending entries in the Record of Rights, ruling that the respondent acted without juri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
